lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200802161058.49473.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:58:48 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@....ocn.ne.jp>
Cc:	spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spi transfer with zero length

On Saturday 16 February 2008, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> Hi.  Is it legal to use zero for 'len' field of struct spi_transfer?
> I mean, len=0, tx_buf=rx_buf=NULL, delay_usecs!=0.

Yes that should work ... it's uncommon, but not illegal.  Some
controller drivers may even handle that right!

If the delay were zero and cs_change didn't indicate a need to
briefly deselect the chip, it might make sense to reject such
a NOP transfer.  But that's not the case you identify.


> Some SPI devices need slightly long delay before first CLK edge after
> CS assertion.

For future reference ... could you identify a few such devices,
and say what "long" is relative to the clock period?

Some folk have just slowed down the clock in such cases, but
that's rather sub-optimal.


> To achieve this, I think inserting using a zero length 
> transfer before real transfers.  But it seems some drivers do not
> handle this case properly.

Feel free to submit patches fixing those bugs.


> Is this driver's bug, or we need additional delay field in struct
> spi_device for such case?

I'd like to avoid new parameters to cover case that can already
be expressed in the programming interface.  Cases that can't be
expressed ... different issue.  I suspect any patches updating
timing parameters should use nanoseconds not microseconds, fwiw.

- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ